At first, they denied it—“OpenAI chief technology officer Mira Murati said the company did not pattern any ChatGPT voices on Johansson’s sultry computer voice in the movie,” but Altman and other OpenAI guys had let the cat out the bag on Twitter
They’re not just deliberately using her voice; they’re deliberately lying about it and bragging about what really happened in public. They’ll pay some nuisance settlement that’s a small fraction of their profit.
That’s how they treat an a list actress. Imagine how they treat everyone else. You don’t get a settlement. You just get fucked.
No, you don’t understand, these guys are tech bros, they’re special, for reasons.
From the article:
they don’t just think they’re the smartest people in the world, they think that everyone else is stupid.
And that sums up techbros in one sentence.
You see this in action anytime people go “no no you just don’t understand how this works” as a way of sidestepping the overall issue. They try to bury you in the minutiae of it, and what’s “technically” possible without acknowledging that A) what’s possible will increase over time and B) the issue is not technology, it’s the intention of it and the motivations of the people behind it.
It’s like trying to deconstruct the concept of a gun, talking about all its potential mechanical malfunctions, its capacity limits, the fact you have to aim it, and so on, all as a way of trying to downplay the danger of it being pointed directly at you.
Damn you really nailed it. This is something that has bothered me a lot but I’ve never found a good way to explain it. Your analogy is perfect.
They would not keep doing it if it did not keep working.
There are a great many similarities to this and all of Trump’s many & varied trials - when the rewards (of rape, bribery, extortion, blackmail, assassination, and so many other things) FAR outweigh the risks, it would be the height of stupidity to expect that nobody would ever even so much as dream of taking advantage.
And by stupidity, I suppose I mean Mitch McConnell, who more than any other singular individual that we can see decides e.g. which and whether judges can be appointed to their seats, and which and whether government programs may get funded - e.g. watchdog organizations that used to prosecute law-breaking behaviors, way back in ye olden times. (Mitch’s partner in this is not worth mentioning bc that role is played by a rotating cast of characters - now it’s Mike Johnson, before it was Kevin McCarthy, maybe next it will be Matt Gaetz, who da fuq knows.)
Every time we hear about another tech bro that gets a slap on the risk, while e.g. a black person gets shot just for walking/running/jogging/working/breathing/sleeping, we should remind ourselves: this is on purpose (or at least deemed “acceptable losses”, “collateral damage”). Those laws were supposed to be ours (Of/For/By The People) to make as we wished, and were, before this country was taken over from the inside by a silent coup, more than a decade prior to January 6. Now, an increasingly smaller minority runs the entire nation - e.g. less than a handful ousted McCarthy - and we seem to have collectively decided that we will do nothing about it.
Even conservatives should be against this, bc getting your way is not the same thing as doing things properly, and maintaining a stable
democracysystem of governance (who am I kidding, we’ve been a plutocracy since basically the beginning) is something that is required for us all to continue to exist. Example scenario: I am a father and two of my teenage children are having a birthday celebration, with both of their hearts desires set on sushi, and my wife wanted Chinese food but is okay with sushi. However, I don’t like sushi, hence we are all going for barbecue (despite one of the birthday teens being vegetarian except fish), and that’s final - sound familiar? Winning an argument is not the same as “winning” at life.TLDR: expect more of this kind of “tech bro” nonsense over time rather than less, bc we have more foundational issues that are leaking out to cause / allow them.
Sorry this is a lot of words - I think sometimes we oversimplify so wanted to keep all these details, this time.
expect more of this kind of “tech bro” nonsense over time rather than less
They’ll probably end up becoming the next big conservative party if the social conservative fascists are beaten.
In a very realistic sense that has happened already.
First, the actual smart ones (or those who listen to smart advisors, same difference) - I’m talking about the likes of Zuckerberg and Bezos - have adapted to get ahead no matter who wins the election. These will utilize whatever advantage their robot/lizard brains can concoct. We hear about these, but they have successfully managed to train society to not think about them all that much, especially in conjunction to words like “politics” or “inflation”, despite being very much active in both. e.g., FaceBook
facilitated genocidewas bad - oh uh… well uh… haven’t you heard, FaceBook is dead now, while we are “Meta”, didn’t you know!?But both the Musk and the Donald have their own proprietary social media platforms - Xhitter and [Alternative]Truth Social, respectively - and they have already eaten out the heart of most of the former conservative party. i.e. before the Tea Party (e.g. Ted Cruz) could eat out the GOP from the inside out, the Donald overtook that process and was so “successful” at it that a lot of people - us and them even! - call it the “GQP” now. The Kings of Old, aka Moscow Mitch, now have to kiss the ring of the twice-impeached former reality TV personality, while ignoring the sounds & smells of shatting (it pains me to think that the latter part of that sentence I mean literally! and then arguably even worse figuratively, e.g. how Trump makes fun of their wives in public but they have to swallow their pride and praise him or else their own supporters will boot them out as fast as McCarthy was).
Anyway, Trump is not a “tech bro”, but the likes of the Musk look up to him all the same, and also there’s a fantastic argument that FaceBook helped elect Trump to be President in the first place, much as Twitter is trying to get him back in for a second term, so the tech bro culture is very much ingrained in the heart of the conservative party even now.
According to her statement, they were still trying to strike a deal with her within days of the release.
I can’t imagine anything more shady than trying to strike a deal with someone for their likeness, all the while preparing to use it anyway and later denying it had anything to do with them
She is going to take them to the cleaners, and Altman and his circlejerk club will deserve every single cent of the damages they’re forced to pay. I genuinely hope she makes it an incredibly messy and eye wateringly expensive legal process for them. I’m not a ScarJo fanboy by any means, but fuck OpenAI for thinking they can get away with something so absurdly blatant and obviously unethical.
They “let the cat out of the bag” by referencing the movie “Her” if I understand correctly. Not really an admition of guilt like the article makes it seem.
They also clearly state on their website that they used an other voice actor. If you actually compare both voices, they aren’t the same just similar. They probably went with someone that sounds like her on purpose specifically because of the movie but that’s fine really.
This article is emotional and manipulative. I don’t think scar jo deserves to own the whole spectrum her voice belongs to just because she voiced an AI in one movie. This is how you end up with corporations owning all voices like they tried with music.
I wouldn’t ever want someone to be able to own a tone/sound of voice. I’m with you there.
But it kinda sounds like they’re trying to straight-up imitate her. Like they want people to hear this ai and think it’s voiced by johanssen herself.
I don’t know if that’s true, or if it even makes a difference legally, it’s just the impression I’m getting.
I’m not knowledgeable about any of this; any correction is welcome, lol.
No matter how similar the voice is to Scarlett Johansson’s, it would still sound fundamentally different. But there are tricks that you can use to alter the pitch and range of a voice to make it sound more like a specific person and that’s probably what they did.
In Scarlett Johansson‘s statement, she says that OpenAI approached her to voice the Sky voice.
Whether or not OpenAI hired another actress that sounded very similar to her (hah.) and they are weirdly cagey about naming or they just ripped off the audio from her movies and are lying about hiring a voice actress, is not the extent of the issue.
People sounding alike just happens. But that we know they asked to use Johansson’s voice for this. After being rebuffed, they created Sky, which sounds a lot like Sam, and made several references to the Her movie. Sky is even presented with the same ‘personality’ as Sam. They aren’t just ripping off Scarlett Johansson’s voice acting, they’re ripping off the character as a whole, and trying to associate themselves with the movie. That’s shameful and rips off Spike Jonze as well as all the other creatives who created that movie.
And for what? Because tech bros didn’t get what they wanted, so they decided to try to rip off the characters anyway? Because Her is sort of a cultural touchstone, and their product is merely well-positioned, but GPT-4o will be in a crowded market space within 6 months?It’s sort of pathetic - pretending to lean on the relevance of a movie because your product is destined to become irrelevant.
Also - highly ironic to me that Her is (somewhat) about how you can’t own something that doesn’t consent to be owned. And those dumb bitches went and ripped it off when they didn’t get consent. Well, now Sky’s gone to join Sam in some non-corporeal reality.Sorry for the novel. I didn’t sleep well and I get weird when I’m sleep deprived.
Just like scarlet doesn’t own all voices that sound mildly like her, Spike Jonze doesn’t own the concept of an AI companion.
I’m not really sure what your point is, there’s nothing to rip off. No matter what they make it sound like, there’s going to be similarities with the movie. There’s nothing wrong with leaning into these for advertising purposes.
No matter what they make it sound like, there’s going to be similarities with the movie.
I don’t follow.
They literally disabled the ‘Sky’ voice Sunday night and now users can’t pick a voice that sounds like the character from Her.
And, mind you, this is not a ‘huh, they sorta sound the same’ this is a ‘they sound very similar, and have the same personality’ situation, in addition to the fact that Sam Altman is on the record talking about being obsessed with the movie Her - which is circumstantial. What isn’t circumstantial is they literally referenced the movie’s name in their marketing materials. Sam tweeted a vague hint, and his colleagues confirmed it. It’s not speculative.There’s nothing wrong with leaning into these for advertising purposes.
Actually, intellectual property theft is either wrong or merely only technically illegal, depending on where you stand on copyright, but it’s still wrong, either way. Then there’s trying to mislead the public into thinking that GPT-4o was endorsed in some way by those involved in the Her movie. A false endorsement is also illegal. So - wrong there, too.
I’m sure an actual lawyer could find more wrong with it, but just those two things are actual, literal crimes.I’m saying practically any voice with the associated bubbly flirty personality is going to make you think of the movie Her in such a context.
Sure they leaned into it for advertising purposes but a tweet referencing it and showcasing the one voice that sounds like her out of the five isn’t crossing the line imo.
I think it’s a slippery slope to say any AI assistant that has a similar timbre and personality as an AI in a movie is off limits.
As long as they don’t infringe by calling it “Scarjo” or saying “From the movie Her” I don’t see a problem.
I’m saying practically any voice with the associated bubbly flirty personality is going to make you think of the movie Her in such a context.
I don’t know about you, but even a flirty Joaquin Phoenix voice would never make me think of Her.
But if they’d had a “voice actor” do a spot on impression of Paul Bettany, complete with the little pauses and other flourishes of his portrayals of Vision, I’d think they ripped off the character.
I think you and I differ there.
As best as I can figure, you’re stuck on the flimsy excuse from Altman that they hired a voice actor. I see a line of events that points to OpenAI/Altman making a conscious effort to glom onto the Her movie, and specifically, the Samantha character to drum up interest, create viral buzz to enrich further themselves (without compensating anyone involved in the movie), and to try to add a veneer of credibility to a fading trend.Slight turn.
In another life I was a photographer, and one of the things that they do not mess around with is model releases. Any person that appears in your photos that distributed must absolutely have a legal agreement in place. Using someone’s likeness for commercial purposes without consent and/or compensation will get you fucked in triplicate.There’s also the moral part of it. Artists know that you don’t rip off artists. Inspired by, sure. But there’s a line, and you don’t cross it. It’s as simple as that.
Okay, and finally, this is based less on facts I know, and more feelings I have about the situation -
It’s fucking creepy, dude.Okay, so the movie Her - an entire society becomes obsessed with their AI companions and falls in love with them, causing tremendous grief and trauma. And that’s like, what they’re going to lengths to brand but not brand this latest version with? What kind of fucked up things are going on in their heads over there?
It doesn’t make sense.The rundown, again. (Sorry, I like to establish context. Yay neurodivergence.).
Altman is on record saying that Her is his favorite movie, and that it is a major inspiration to him. One of the reasons he got into this field. He spent 9 months trying to convince Johansson to work with him on this, and lend her name/voice to this latest iteration of ChatGPT. He’s been so focused on getting her to lend his name to this, that he continued asking her to join in on this even just a few days before the announcement, which was like, the 13th. And that’s after she’s already turned him down, so he was just ignoring her boundaries and trying to pressure her…
On the 11th - two days before this announcement, Altman does a Reddit AMA (which he was doing as part of the 4o press junket) and says that he’d like to open up ChatGPT for personal NSFW usage.I mean, everyone is focusing on Her, but we probably should also to be thinking about the Lucy Liu Futurama episode, because… well, I’m just going to say it. I think he already fucked the robot. The line of events from A to B is transparent and fucking gross.
Not the whole fucking a robot thing - people got needs - but that the likeness is obviously stolen from a non-consenting actress that I’m beginning to believe he’s obsessed with.So … yeah… I have all the problems with this. I view concerns over the usage of her voice as immaterial to the usage of the character, and I see an inherent difference between an LLM mimicking a random voice that happens to sound like someone, and this situation, where the voice was clearly created to represent the character, and by extension, the actor that played the character. I don’t think there’s a slippery slope here. Most judges are fairly smart, and will be able to articulate something I (a non legal) took as a given from the outset.
Ya I get your point, I just think the similarities are too vague and trying to put down boundaries is fool hardy.
Like what’s the spectrum of voice that isn’t allowed here, how much does it need to differ from scarjo. Is it just because the character was AI. How much does the personality have to differ if that part matters.
Here’s a comparison by the way, they are hardly the same imo.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ8UVSXnefk
I also don’t think liking the movie or asking scarjo really mean anything if you think about it.
People can get their inspiration from wherever they like and falling in love with an AI is nothing novel, the directors certainly don’t have claim to the concept.
In any case, I think mostly it’s just hard to draw the line and the line will most likely only benefit corporations and mega celebrities while directly inconveniencing the rest of us.
Not really an admition of guilt like the article makes it seem.
You don’t need an admission of guilt to lose in court. The fact that they pursued her permission up until 2 days before the release, even after being assured the client did not wish for them to utilize her voice, is pretty damning.
I don’t think scar jo deserves to own the whole spectrum her voice belongs to just because she voiced an AI in one movie.
What’s the difference between this and an AI releasing a Taylor Swift album? Does Taylor Swift deserve to own a whole spectrum of voice?
Voice acting is still an art, and artists deserve to be paid for their contributions. If she has performed an awfully in Her, would they still want to mimic her voice? If Her hadn’t been made, would they have come up with the voice and personality out of the blue?
No, because it’s art, and AI is just an advanced copying machine. Open AI is just the newest attempt to leverage artists and workers from their group bargaining power. It’s the scab of the future, but with more carbon emissions.
You don’t need an admission of guilt to lose in court.
Currently even if they used voice clips to train a model on her voice it wouldn’t be illegal. That isn’t currently the case, since they say they used an other actress that sounds like her anyways.
Does Taylor Swift deserve to own a whole spectrum of voice?
No, just like she doesn’t deserve to own the four chord progressions that make up her songs. If she did, she could literally sue half of all pop music.
This is why none of this is copyrightable. There are too many people that have similar voices and too many songs that use similar chord progressions.
Your fantasy where this empowers small time artists is just that, a fantasy. If we push and they come out with new laws that make these things copyrightable, you just end up with corporations owning all of it.
Currently even if they used voice clips to train a model on her voice it wouldn’t be illegal.
I think that’s currently the point of contention…
That isn’t currently the case, since they say they used an other actress that sounds like her anyways.
That’s what they’re claiming, but it’s not like open AI doesn’t have a pretty well documented history of lying.
No! Just like she doesn’t deserve to own the four chord progressions that make up her songs.
There’s a difference between common chord progressions and plagiarizing someone’s voice and performance. You are the only person conflating the two.
This is why none of this is copyrightable. There are two many people that have similar voices
I think their intent is pretty clear. They didn’t want a similar voice, they wanted her voice. After failing at getting her consent, they proceeded anyways.
and too many songs that use similar chord progressions.
There’s actual precedent on how similar songs can be to each other without giving credit. Simple chord progressions aren’t copyrightable, but how those chord progressions are performed are.
Your fantasy where this empowers small time artists is just that, a fantasy.
Lol, if they are able to plagiarize art from millionaires, what’s the chance there’s going to be any kind of protections for small artist?
If we push and they come out with new laws that make these things copyrightable, you just end up with corporations owning all of it.
We don’t have to come out with laws banning chord progressions, that’s just a strawman argument you erected yourself. We just need to apply the laws we currently have to AI companies. If Sony had tried to get her to dress like black widow and do a commercial and she refused. And if they then proceeded to hire an actress who looked like her, dressed the actress in a black skin tight suit, and gave her a red wig… We’d be dealing with a hefty lawsuit, even if they claimed it wasn’t supposed to be SJ.
If you read another article that has more information to it, instead of just this opinion piece, it looks like they hired and paid a voice actress and that it is her natural voice (supposedly).
Which begs the question: Can a voice actor be denied work or denied the ability to have their voice used, if they sound similar to someone else who is more famous?
This kind of reminds me of Crispin Glover, from Back to the Future. He tried to negotiate a higher pay for the second movie, so the producers hired a different actor to play the role, but deliberately made the actor up to look like Glover. In response, Glover sued the producers and won. It set a critical precedent for Hollywood, about using someone’s likeness without consent.
The article mentions they reached out to her two days before the launch - if she had said ‘OK,’ there’s no way they could have even recorded what they needed from her, let alone trained the model in time for the presentation. So they must have had a Scarlett Johansson voice ready to go. Other than training the model on movies (really not ideal for a high quality voice model), how would they have gotten the recordings they needed?
If they hired a “random” voice actress, they might not run into issues. But if at any point they had a job listing, a discussion with a talent manager, or anything else where they mentioned wanting a “Scarlett Johansson sound-alike,” they might have dug themselves a nice hole here.
Specifically regarding your question about hiring a voice actor that sounds like someone else - this is commonly done to replace people for cartoons. I don’t think it’s an issue if you are playing a character. But if you deliberately impersonate a person, there might be some trouble.
Honestly, with the tweets that reference the Her movie, they may already be in a hole, anyway. Plus, it’s not just the voice, it’s that the ‘character’ of the Sky voice is very similar to Sam in the Her movie.
If I were a jurist, I could easily be persuaded to believe they willingly committed IP theft and attempted to imply endorsement of the Her movie (the production studio?), Spike Jonze, and Scarlett Johansson.
(Of course, that statement would disqualify me as a jurist, so I’ll never know!)Well one of the other articles I’ve read said they listened to and sampled 400 voice actors and selected 5 of them to have flown out to do all the voice work. The voice in the product also doesn’t sound that much like Scar Jo. Just similar. She never had a very unique voice.
I think it is less a question of whether the voice sounds like Scarlett Johansson, as that is subjective and arbitrary (e.g. assume you could objectively measure the similarity, what’s the acceptable cut off - 80%? 90%?). The same is true for the uniqueness of her voice.
I think the real question will come down to intention. They clearly wanted her voice. Did they intentionally attempt to replicate it when they couldn’t have the real thing? If so, there is precedent that would suggest they could be in a little trouble here, e.g. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-09-me-238-story.html
The voice they’re using isn’t a replicated one, though. It’s a paid voice actress and it is supposed to be her natural voice. It also does sound a bit different than scar jo.
Intent probably matters a lot here. The actor they hired did not coincidentally have a similar voice. They were hired because they had a similar voice, and the fact that Scarlett Johansson was approached to start with only underscores this.
They were specifically looking for her likeness, for commercial reasons. And when it was denied, they purposely imitated it. That doesn’t feel right to me. In the end, they’re still trying to use her likeness without permission.
That’s different than if they liked a VA’s voice and hired them. The voice could be similar, but there was no ill intent nor attempting to copy a likeness. I think they would’ve been fine if they were even shooting for something like her voice. Where OpenAI fucked up is approaching Johansson to start with, because it shows they didn’t want something like her voice or the VA coincidentally sounded similar – they purposely wanted her likeness, and went behind her back to do it once she denied them.
Then what about impersonators for hire? Or like a Motley Cru cover band?
Nice try chatgpt but we know it’s tou.
That‘s the type of cockiness you‘d expect from scoundrels who just committed the biggest heist in history and got away with it. I‘m not surprised in the slightest.
These are the same dudes who have LSD and mushroom parties with their female coworkers and then pressure them into sex.
Source? Sounds about right for techbro AI douches, curious though
Orgies and psychedelics use is super common in their own rite, but it’s even more common in high tech silicone valley circles:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40401043
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/machine-learning-researcher-links-openai-185652824.html
Most of AI just seems to be blatant theft and copyright issues.
No, it’s only theft when it’s poor people doing it.
When it’s rich people, it’s fair use of a publicly available resource.
Not in this case.
The precedent in this case already exists in Midler v. Ford Motor Co., in which when Academy Award nominated actress and singer Bette Midler sued Ford after Ford hired musical impersonators to sing famous songs for their commercials.
The court ultimately ruled in favor of Midler, because it was found that Ford gave clear instructions to the impersonating actress to sound as much like Midler as possible, and the ruling was voices, although not copyrightable, still constitutes their distinct identity and is protected against unauthorized use without permission. (Outside of satire, of course, since I doubt someone like Trump would be above suing people for making fun of him.)
I think Scarlett Johansson has a case here, but it really hinges on whether or not OpenAI actively gave the instruction specifically to impersonate Scarlett’s voice in “Her”, or if they used her voice inside the training data at all, since there is a difference in the “Sky” voice and the voice of Scarlett Johansson.
But then again, what do I know, I’m just here to shitpost and promote “Barbie”.
This reads like a lemmy version of a shittymorph post
Hey, I have more than one comedy bit I do here other than something something Hell in a Cell, OK?
Speaking of which, Hell in a Cell isn’t even that exciting anymore after the WWE made it an annual event and painted the cages red, and why did Seth Rollins get disqualified after he attacked “The Fiend” Bray Wyatt with a sledgehammer 2019 even though Hell in a Cell matches have always been no disqualification?
It’s like their script writers don’t even care about their own rules.
Yep, definitely a Lemmy version of /u/shittymorph
I miss shittymorph.
Loved you in My Name is Earl
That’s, uh, “Jaime Pressly”, who is totally not esteemed Academy Award nominated character actress Margot Robbie doing an American Southern accent to get more work in the US.
Real talk: at this point, you may be my main reason to still be active on Lemmy.
Because of an impersonator?
That’s probably going to be a big deal in future AI lawsuit.
If intellectual property isn’t exterminated wholesale it will lead to explicitely refusing to answer any person or copyrighted works by name.
So instead of “sing a song about bananas by Taylor Swift” it will be “sing a song about banana by a female singer pop singer whose songs are, on the whole, quite straightforward, primarily revolving around the saga of girl-meets-boy, boy-fails-to-live-up-to-expectations, girl-pens-another-breakup-anthem. Each track features tales of romantic entanglements and emotional rollercoasters, culminating in catchy, radio-friendly tunes that are sure to dominate the charts, accompanied by dramatic twists and heartfelt reconciliations that appear almost out of thin air.”
Holy shit we have a character on Lemmy now I’m deleting my Reddit account
Who knew someone who plays characters on screen for a living would be so good at playing a character?
This is an A-Lister commie board, we have Ryan Gosling too!
Edit: whoops I thought this was a hexbear post but my point stands, less commie though
It’s that barbie girl, in the lemmy wooorld ~~
Lemmy is gonna lemmy.
There isn’t any evidence that they used her voice for the “Sky” voice model. Actually, there is evidence that they paid a voice actress to model that specific actress’s voice.
That actress sounds similar to Scarlett, but it isn’t Scarlett’s voice. Is that illegal? No. Is it grounds for a suit? maybe. Will Scarlett win? Maybe.
Let’s put it another way. If you wanted to record an audio book, but you wanted the voice actor to have certain qualities that you think would help your book sell. You think Scarlett has all of those qualities, so you ask her if she would record it for you. She declines.
Well shit, that sucks. But wait! She’s not the only person with those vocal qualities. I am sure you can find someone else with very similar qualities. So you hire another voice actress that has all of those–which coincidentally and very understandable sounds a lot like Scarlett. But it isn’t Scarlett.
Everyone wants to say “big corp bad!” here, but if they truly didn’t use Scarlett’s voice and didn’t do any sort of manipulation to make it sound more like Scarlett, then why CANT they do it. I get that Scarlett is upset, but she’s basically mad that someone sounds like her–and decided to work for OpenAI.
If I wanted James Earl Jones to read my eulogy, but he isn’t available or is unwilling. Why couldn’t I get someone to sound like him to read it? Why should he be able to sue me for using a voice actor that sounds similar to him?
There is almost certainly internal communication that basically reads “hey let’s get an actress who sounds as close to ScarJo as possible”. There’s also the CEO tweeting “her” on the day of release.
Is that legal? IANAL, but OpenAI’s reaction of immediately shutting that shit down leads me to believe they realized it is, in fact, illegal.
Your comparison is also incorrect. You’re not getting a JEJ soundalike, you’re getting a JEJ soundalike to do a Darth Vader impersonation. Meaningfully different semantics. They don’t just want “white american woman who vaguely sounds like ScarJo I guess” they have proven beyond doubt that they want “The AI from the 2013 movie Her starring Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson”.
Also legality aside, it’s really fucking weird and ethically wrong. I don’t care if it’s legal or not, you shouldn’t be able to make an AI replicate someone’s voice without their consent.
OpenAI’s actions could just as easily be explained by them seeking to protect their image as much as possible, knowing that if they let the voice stay then bad PR would only grow.
Even if there is no connection to ScarJo in this case, it’s still in OpenAI’s interest to appease the public for the sake of their reputation.
There is without a doubt a connection to ScarJo. They asked her to voice the AI, they asked her again right before release, and the CEO tweeted “her” on release.
The only question is whether, backlash aside, they could technically get away with it (which does not make it right).
And OpenAI successfully, publicly closes down any competition in synthetic AI voices.
Tweeting “her” was stupid but he has stated for years its his favorite movie and honestly even with a wildly different man voice it is still a very similar appearing product as the movie.
There is evidence they wanted to use Johansson’s voice, because they asked to use her voice. Both OpenAI and Johansson have acknowledged this.
As far as I know, OpenAI has said they hired a voice actor before approaching Johansson, but refuses to offer additional information to corroborate.
After failing to secure Johansson to lend her voice to Sky - which is portrayed as having not just a very similar voice, but a very similar personality to Sam - the OpenAI team made several references to the Her movie prior to the announcement.
Similar voices happen. But when all of those other pieces align, it’s fairly clear that they’re copying the character. Focusing on only the voice being similar is reductive. They are committing IP theft and they’re attempting to confer approval/endorsement/a relationship of/to the Sky personality from the people involved in the Her movie.
They might not want to give that actress’s identity out out of a respect for privacy. This information could come out in a closed court room, but with the state of viral social media, it might be smart to hold off on unveiling for now.
I don’t know what their motivation is, but I definitely hope they protect the identity of the voice actress. If her name gets out, it’s basically guaranteed her life would suck for a while.
If she’s like 99% of actors, she’s someone just struggling to get work, who’s lucky if she can afford to rent an apartment without roommates. If her name got out, she’s almost certainly have to deal with death threats, stalkers, etc. Rich celebrities can deal with that kind of attention because they have the money to hire security people, PR people, lawyers, etc. Some random voice actor is not going to have those resources.
respect for privacy
Sure, bud
And that’s both fine and valid.
If an actor was hired, I could see them being treated as a scab or not being offered roles - perhaps because they agreed to take a job that they had no idea would be used in such a way, or with no idea that a controversy would emerge.
I am dubious, though. It seems that OpenAI pulled the voice shortly after Johansson’s legal team requested information about how the Sky voice was created.
It’s a fair assumption that I’m biased - and I am. I’m not the biggest fan of ‘big tech.’ So perhaps I’m not as objective as others.But I think the voice actor part is still minor. It’s not just the voice, it’s the character, and all the references to the movie, which I think were intended to deceive consumers and create false sense of endorsement.
Or maybe not, maybe it’s that Sam Altman is a man-child with a crush on Johansson. He’s openly said that Her is his favorite movie, and it’s not a leap to see a CEO cowing his staff into bad decisions.
They are copying the fictional movie character… the voice is a real person and their is precedent that explicitly impersonating a voice is ip theft.
But a fictional personality and a voice that has similar features? I really hope this does settle in court.
Ironically, a similarity to a real, live person without an agenda is not a legal problem unless there’s an implied endorsement from the person. (Which I think was one of the goals here.)
But characters in movies and books are subject to copyright and are considered the intellectual property of the rights holders.So like, if I wrote a book about Wolverine and used other Marvel X-men, Marvel could sue the shit out of me. Or if I used AI to create Hugh Jackman (as Wolverine) to endorse my bandaid product line, I could also be sued by both Jackman and Marvel.
I think it’s obvious here that Sky was intended to represent Sam from Her, and is almost certainly trained on her voice data (which is copywritten). After a few days thought however, I’m less certain of the argument this could be seen as a false endorsement scheme, since Johansson isn’t mentioned anywhere. (Despite the character being solely played by her, and the numerous attempts to have Johansson work on the project in an official capacity.)
To be fair, I did choose Sky specifically because it sounded like Scarlett.
I believe she has many reasons to believe they used her voice and I think it’s fair for her to want to open a lawsuit. They literally asked her and she said no. They tweeted “Her” which is pretty clearly referencing her role in the film.
References a suit will make will likely be to how US copyright laws prevent people from using lookalikes. AFAIK it’s never had a need to go with sounds like but it’s there to protect “brand of self”
Man, I’m starting to get real tired of Lemmy’s extreme black and white way of talking about issues
I don’t think it is only Lemmy. Most places on the Internet seem to be this way now.
It does seem to be that way. Is the internet getting more extreme and reactionary? Or are we just noticing it more?
I think everyone is barely holding onto their sanity.
Their actions mislead people into believing it’s Scarlett Johanssons voice.
Did they tho? It clearly says the AI name is Sky and not Scarlett. Misleading would imply they specifically called her out in marketing materials.
If anything, they mimic the AI in the movie Her. If anything they should be the one that might have a case.
There isn’t any evidence that they used her voice
There’s ample evidence, via the samples OpenAI released during their demo.
Actually, there is evidence that they paid a voice actress to model that specific actress’s voice.
Actually, there’s not. OpenAI refuses to release where they got their voice samples. They insist it came from “another unnamed actress”.
She’s not the only person with those vocal qualities.
If the raw data OpenAI used to train its AI came from voice samples produced by Scarlett Johansson, then there actually IS only one person with those vocal qualities.
If I wanted James Earl Jones to read my eulogy, but he isn’t available or is unwilling. Why couldn’t I get someone to sound like him to read it?
Nothing is stopping you from doing this.
However, if you took an existing privately licensed James Earl Jones eulogy and doctored it with AI trained data to replace another person’s name with your name, then you’d be robbing Jones of his work product.
Waving your hands and saying “But maybe I didn’t do the thing I did, so actually its fine” isn’t a credible defense.
They insist it came from “another unnamed actress”.
Rumor has it they’ve kept her in a jar since birth, her only exposure to the world being through cameras hidden around the Julliard campus.
Lawsuits have been won by celebrities because a commercial used a lookalike, which still impacts the celebrity and their brand. They were in the wrong and didn’t care.
She absolutely should sue, and I hope she wins. Their BS excuse of “It’s totally someone else, but you wouldn’t know her, she goes to another school. Also we have to protect her identity for reasons” is as blatant as it gets.
Her identity was never used.
Setting a president that voice can be copyrighted would be extremely bad for everyone who isn’t already a AAA actor.
If I sound like David Attenborough, even if I have an amazing voice, I can never work in any voice acting for the rest of my life. Just because some trust will sue my ass for sounding too similar to David.
We’re not talking about any project though. In your case, it’d only be like an unaffiliated project specifically trying to imitate a project David Attenborough has worked on in an attempt to mislead people to think it could be David Attenborough. There’s always room for parody, but you couldn’t sell your voice as the ‘Planet Earth’ voice.
That’s the thing. The line is too thin. OpenAI is def not in the clear tho, but likeliness should not be copyrighted. But they didn’t claim this was Scarlett. At most they are trying to replicate a character in a movie.
If they flat out said “Introducing Scarlett AI” then she might have a case. But they didn’t
A voice is too subjective. I for one can tell a very big difference between the voices and they sound like different females. The flirty way Sky is speaking is like Sam from Her. If anything the movie should be upset.
they didn’t claim this was Scarlett
The CEO tweeted ‘her’ on the day ‘Sky’ released. If it were a movie, the bad guys would be too dumb to be believable.
Her could mean many things. It could be the way Sam(the movie character) talks. The flirty style. The way Sky can now detect emotion.
Yup. People up in arms over this should be reminded that if you want to support SJ here that, in a worst case, you are directly supporting the privatization of vocalization. Like to goof around by talking in Morgan Freeman’s voice? Be prepared to get slapped with a notice to stop. That voice is off limits, and oh also your natural voice sounds like this person.
Is this silly? Absolutely. But dammit we see what’s happened to Youtube so be aware of the risk.
Lemmy seems to love copyright now and walled gardens, they also hate all the companies doing great things with open source ai, etc. Plus there’s never any community projects or anything constructive ever been suggested let alone ran here.
95% of the people here’s political opinions are nothing but an aesthetic.
I asked ChatGPT for a response to your comment
Your comment raises several interesting points regarding the use of voice likeness and the legal implications of hiring voice actors who sound similar to well-known celebrities. Let’s break down the key issues:
-
Use of a Similar Voice: The core of the debate revolves around whether using a voice that sounds like a well-known celebrity constitutes a legal issue. If the voice used is indeed not Scarlett Johansson’s but merely resembles it, this might not be inherently illegal. However, it could still lead to legal disputes over rights of publicity and potential misrepresentation.
-
Voice Acting and Vocal Qualities: It is true that many voice actors can mimic the vocal qualities of celebrities. Hiring a voice actor who naturally has a similar voice to a celebrity is a common practice. The legal line is crossed if the intent and execution imply endorsement or use of the celebrity’s identity without permission.
-
Rights of Publicity: Celebrities, including Scarlett Johansson, have rights of publicity, which protect against unauthorized commercial use of their name, likeness, and other identifiable aspects of their persona. If the resemblance is close enough that it creates confusion or implies endorsement, it could be grounds for a lawsuit.
-
Potential for a Lawsuit: Whether Scarlett Johansson would win a lawsuit depends on several factors, including the jurisdiction’s specific laws on rights of publicity, the exact nature of the voice usage, and whether it can be proven that the voice model intentionally mimics her voice in a way that exploits her identity.
-
Practical Examples: Your analogy with James Earl Jones highlights a key point. If a voice actor is hired for their natural resemblance to a well-known voice, it’s typically acceptable. However, explicitly marketing or promoting the voice in a way that suggests it is the celebrity without their consent could lead to legal challenges.
In summary, while it may not be outright illegal to use a voice that sounds like a celebrity, there are significant legal nuances and potential for litigation if the use implies unauthorized endorsement or exploits the celebrity’s identity. The balance lies in how the voice is marketed and whether it misleads the audience into believing it is the celebrity.
Posting raw ChatGPT output is the lowest effort content possible
That was the point.
But why. No one wants to read that shit and if they did they could put it in ChatGPT themselves.
It saved me a click
-
A big lawsuit is necessary to set a precedence.
deleted by creator
Wtf are you talking about
Not what you or the Supreme Court thinks.
Phew, good thing the courts in the USA - (a country with sadly laughable protections for people’s rights compared to other large developed regions like the EU) - are the only courts in the world, and what they do is the only thing that matters.
Thanks for telling us all what we think, by the way. Where would we be without an American telling us all what we think?
We’re so lucky.
Are you telling me they’re going to assassinate Scarlett Johansson
This article is bullshit man, voice is not even that similar, there is 0 proof that’s her voice or even that they asked her if they can use her voice. People is blowing this out of proportion
But they did ask if they could license her voice and she said no. Balls in your court.
Guy you replied to did miss that part but consider the (still to be verified) facts.
-
they ask to use her voice, she declined.
-
they proceed by not using her voice. Someone else’s voice instead.
oPeNaI “believe that AI voices should not deliberately mimic a celebrity’s distinctive voice—Sky’s voice is not an imitation of Scarlett Johansson but belongs to a different professional actress using her own natural speaking voice. To protect their privacy, we cannot share the names of our voice talents.”
The end result is pretty clear here. Either this other person exist and could testify privately in court with her natural voice which she has the rights to work with OpenAi. There is a closure in law where not being able to provide evidence that the court knows must exist can make you guilty. Openai could have tried to pull a “this is a fully unique synthetic voice” but crucially they did not.
-
And they didn’t use her voice. Article clearly states that she said she is shocked they choose similar voice to her after she declined. It makes sense for open Ai to choose similar one because when they were preparing list of the voices they obviously wanted voice to be of her kind. It’s not like her voice is something so fucking unique she has copyright over all of the similar voices in the world
And despite all your lame denials they are shutting that voice down. Why is that?
compliance isn’t admission of guilt but again it’s OPENAI.
Avoiding dramas caused by unreasonable human population
I guess every out of court settlement is an admission of guilt in your eyes? It’s nothing to do with the massive amount of money wasted dealing with legal matters or anything.
The court of public opinion has a much lower burden of proof than the court of law.
If Scarlett Johansson is trying to accuse them of using her voice without consent, do you really think it will only end up in the court of public opinion? My point is that it might escalate to court, which OpenAI might not want to deal with. Backing down in this case is just as much of an admission of guilt as taking a settlement out of court, which is not at all.
Welp, we finally have the voice spoofer from Uplink.
“My voice is my passport, verify me.”
Fuck me sometimes I felt like I was the only person on the planet to play that game
The reference was actually a reference to the earlier movie Sneakers which was one of the first movies about hacking.
And yeah, Uplink was awesome.
Random story, in one mission while I was searching a database for a client, I fat fingered the name and it gave me back a different person’s record
IT WAS MY FULL REAL LIFE NAME
Spooked the shit out of me.
Hah, guess there are at least 3 of us here.
Though I found it randomly on Steam, a decadeish after it originally came out.
Do not try to play it in 4k. It’ll work, because its an actually well coded game, but there is no scaling lol. Teeeny Tiny UI.
Introversion habe so far pretty much only knocked out well written games afaik!
Too bad I also came too late to the party to buy the source code discs they sold at the end of its lifetime…
My brother played the heck out of Uplink as a kid; thanks to him, I know about the UplinkOS mod, which makes the game (more) playable at higher resolutions. It looks to be an overhaul of the entire UX, so your mileage may vary, I guess.
Hey, I did not know about that! Thanks!
I can’t not read that in a garbled south african accent.
This is very much the type of case that settles out of court for an undisclosed amount of money.
It could be, if she wants it to be.
It could also be the type of case where her lawyers stop openAI from ever using her voice again, if she wants that to be the case.
Being rich opens up options. If openAI would be using my voice instead, they’d have a wildly less popular product but nobody to sue them for it, cause I’d be using my money to still dream about home ownership at some point before I die, not to hire lawyers or fight windmills.
To add to this, Scarlett Johansson took on Disney and they settled. And Disney is like the final boss of litigious companies (either them or Nintendo). If she has the same legal team for this, and they think she has a case against OpenAI, this could open the door for OpenAI to get rightfully clobbered for their tech-bro ignoring of copyright laws.
Obviously I don’t know what the details of he suit against Disney but the truth is Disney fucked up and they knew it.
Disney tried to gain a few extra bucks at the cost of a legal battle with Johansson. If Disney won it would have been a clear signal that Disney is willing to screw over top talent for a few million dollars.
Not to compare “Black Widow” to “Endgame”, but that’s squabbling over millions when billions are at stake.
Looking at someone like Johansson that’s squabbling over millions when tens of hundreds millions are at stake. Contracts with top talent now take longer, top talent is a little less likely to work with Disney.
It all but guaranteed a loss for Disney.
The settlement was Disney’s way of saying “we fucked up”, and truth be told was probably at least partially responsible for Bob Chapek being replaced as CEO.
Or OpenAI are targeting a known litigious actress so that any competitors thinking of creating a business of celebrity-sound-alike are sufficiently dissuaded.
Regulatory Capture
Shut this shit company down
This story is blowing so fucking far out of proportion it’s honestly incredible. Just so everyone is one the same page, here is a video timestamped to the voice, and immediately following the voice you can hear the voice from Her as well.
https://youtu.be/3BWjomtK-94?si=tDu574b4GySpnPIy&t=42
They are not similar other than they are both female.
The whole “her” thing that Altman threw up on twitter is just because the goddamned movie was a touchstone for the kind of thing that they are doing. They weren’t cloning the fucking voice. It’s like naming your new iguana Godzilla. It’s not going to destroy Tokyo any time soon, it’s just a cultural reference, you know, like a meme.
As far as Johansson goes, she is falling prey to this shit just like every other celebrity that has been railing against big bad AI. There are so many sheisty lawyers trying to get their hands on the first big win from an AI suit that they will say anything to get a celebrity to sue, because if their firm wins, they become the Anti-AI lawfirm that all others will seek in the future. They will print money, but only if something sticks, and so far, nothing has. This will be another case like any other, where they take it to court, and there is no real basis for anything, and it ends up being all over the news and then disappearing like the whole debacle over Sarah Silverman’s book. In three months there will be another case against AI, and again, nothing will stick, because the people putting the bug in people’s ears don’t understand how to use most of the functionality of their cellphone, let alone how generative AI works.
They are not similar other than they are both female.
I thought Ferengi were supposed to have good hearing.
Finally, a sane response. Of course they’ll “sound similar” because they’re both female voices attempting to come off as friendly with an American accent.
I’m more on the side of opposing AI implementations but people are really reaching with this one. I’m assuming it was pulled just so they can get their legal defense in order.
This will be another case like any other, where they take it to court, and there is no real basis for anything
Because then they’ll give up whoever it was that they used to voice the AI and it’ll be mostly over. The thing is though that if they rush into a lawsuit too eagerly, nobody’s going to want to work with them under a similar contract.
I think they’re both pretty similar. The main difference being that one is being played from a shitty phone speaker and recorded by a camera and the other is coming from studio quality audio.
It’s still very much not nice to specifically use the reference from the movie given Scarlett clearly indicates she doesn’t like what they are doing.
You can literally pick another reference - not that she is the only person ever playing a digital/robotic woman.
But they proceeded anyway. This signals disregard and disrespect to whatever sources they use, if nothing else.
By all means, rattle off some references that will make sense in the context.
She did not indicate anything of the sort, just that she did not want to take part in it. Beyond that is speculation. She is asking for documentation proving they did not use her voice without permission to train the AI. That’s perfectly fair.
Yeah I thought OpenAI came out and said that they modeled the voice of a different actress, and they don’t want to share their identity out of a respect for privacy.
It could just be a coincidence that Altman tweeted the image from Her, and people made the connection between the voice and ScarJo, especially since she did something extreme similar in that movie.
Could be coincidental. Could not be. We don’t really have the evidence to say either way, but maybe ScarJo’s suit will affect change so that better rights are granted to people and their digital twins.
No no you don’t understand. Since Scar Jo played a female voice that behaved nicely and made jokes in a movie she now owns the rights to any female (or feminine male voice) that either: makes a joke, says something witty, answers a question, or makes a statement. This is a slam dunk case for Scar Jo. I will also be sued for writing this as she also wrote an email in a movie once that had words in the forms of sentences just like this post so I’m screwed.
Just tell the judge that an AI wrote your post and you can walk away scot-free.
I’m much more concerned about the fact that the voice has simulated emotions behind it, leading people to trust their hallucinating AI even more.
Something, something… don’t ask for permission, ask for forgiveness. Yet, they asked for permission and were denied.
Not sure if they thought they’d get away with it or if they just wanted this publicity. I’m thinking it was their hubris.
deleted by creator
That was kind of random
It’s not. This is their 2nd comment on this thread about some part killing others or wherever vague type comment. I’m assuming this is a bot.
Send a huge bill and then sue for payment. Let them fight the fight for you.
🔊 Vocal Comparison: ScarJo vs Samantha vs Sky
RedLib link via SafeReddit (privacy protecting)
“unsafe”reddit link
here (old.reddit)
Wish I had time yesterday to do a comparison myself, using better clips from Her and the newest OpenAI demo clips. Plus would get the ChatGPT app to speak some lines from Her.
Let’s say OpenAI did actually use Scarlett Johansson’s voice. Who owns the audio that OpenAI used? Scarlett Johansson herself or the movie company that used the audio in their movie(s)? This might be a case of Scarlett Johansson vs the movie company, not Scarlett Johansson vs OpenAI, as OpenAI could have paid for them.
If she signed away her likeness rights then probably. However if the contract didn’t have a provision for transfer to another medium then they would revert to her.
Source: Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back
I’ve never seen “her” the movie and at certain inflections all I could hear is Scarlett Johansson’s voice.
